Im afraid we live in loopy times. How else to account for the latest entries in Americas culture wars: science museum docents donning combat gloves against rival fundamentalist tour groups and evolution on trial in a Pennsylvania federal court. For those keeping score, so far this year its Monkeys: 0, Monkey Business: 82. That's 82 evolution versus creationism debates in school boards or towns nationwidethis year alone. [1]

This past summer, when most Americans were distracted by thoughts of beaches and vacations or the high price of gasoline (even before the twin hits of Katrina and Rita), 2 heavy-weight political figures joined the President of the United States to weigh in on a supposedly scientific issue. US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, and President George W. Bush each endorsed the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in the science classroom. Can anyone reasonably convince me that these pronouncements were not just cynical political punditry but, rather, were expressions of sincere beliefs?

So you have to ask yourself in light of all of these events, are we headed back to the past with no escape in the future? Are we trapped in a new period of history when science, once again, is in for the fight of its life?

In times like these, as inundated as we are by technical wizardry, one might conclude that American technological supremacy and know-how would lead, inevitably, to a deeper understanding or trust of science. Well, it doesnt. Perhaps just the opposite is true. Technology and gee whiz gadgetry has led to more suspicion rather than less. And a typical Americans understanding of science is limited at best. As far as evolution is concerned, if youre a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is even more depressing. A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority48 percentdo not believe that Darwins theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time [2].

What if we become a nation that cant chew gum, walk down the street, and transplant embryonic stem cells all at the same time? Does it matter?

New York Times journalist Cornelia Dean, who balances her time between science reporting for the Times and lecturing at Harvard, told me that she believes that science stands in a perilous position. Science, as an institution, has largely ceded the microphone to people who do not necessarily always embrace the scientific method, she says. Unless scientists participate in the public life of our country, our discourse on a number of issues of great importance becomes debased [3].

Others, such as journalist Chris Mooney, point to the increasing politicization of science as a pollutant seeping into our nations psyche. In his recent book, The Republican War on Science, Mooney spells out the danger of ignorance in public life when ideology trumps science.

Science politicization threatens not just our public health and the environment but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function. At a time when more political choices than ever before hinge upon the scientific and technical competence of our elected leaders, the disregard for consensus and expertiseand the substitution of ideological allegiance for careful assessmentcan have disastrous consequences [4].

Jon D. Miller, PhD, a political scientist on faculty at Northwestern Universitys School of Medicine, believes that the sophisticated questions of biology that will confront each and every American in the 21st Century will require that they know the difference between a cell and a cell phone and are able to differentiate DNA from MTV. For decades, Miller has been surveying Americans about their scientific knowledge. We are now entering a period where our ability to unravel previously understood or not understood questions is going to grow extraordinarily, says Miller. As long as you are looking at the physics of nuclear power plants or the physics of transistors [all 20th Century questions] it doesnt affect your short-term belief systems. You can still turn on a radio and say it sounds good but you dont have to know why it works. As we get into genetic medicine, infectious diseases if you dont understand immunity, genetics, the principles of DNA, youre going to have a hard time making sense of these things [5].

Culture Wars and 82 Evolution Debates

Yet in some corners today, knowledge isnt really the problem. Its anti-knowledge that is beginning to scare the scientific community. Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, calls 2005 a fairly busy year when he considers the 82 evolution versus creationism flare-ups that have occurred at the state, local, and individual classroom levels so far. According to a spring 2005 survey of science teachers, the heat in the classroom was not coming from Bunsen burners or exothermic reactions but rather from a pressure on teachers to censor. The National Science Teachers Associations informal survey of its members found that 31 percent of them feel pressured to include creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom [1]. Classrooms arent the only places feeling the heat. Science museums have also become conflict zones. In her New York Times article, Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back, Dean detailed special docent training sessions that will enable the guides to be better armed to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds [6].

These ideological battles arent likely to vanish any time soon. If anything, an organized and emboldened fundamentalist religious movement buttressed by political power in Washington will continue to challenge accepted scientific theory that collides with religious beliefs. So one must ask, is it too farfetched to see these ideological battles spilling over into areas of medical research and even into funding at the National Institutes of Health?

Now I am not asking for a world that doesnt respect religious belief. My education as a Roman Catholic balanced creed and science. In the classroom of my youth, one nun taught creationism in religion class while another taught evolution in science, and never the twain did meet.

Where Is the Medical Community?

The medical community as a whole has been largely absent from todays public debates on science. Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has taken a formal stand on the issue of evolution versus creationism. When physicians use their power of political persuasion in state legislatures and the US Congress, its generally on questions more pertinent to their daily survivalMedicare reimbursement, managed care reform, and funding for medical research. Northwesterns Miller believes that the scientific community cant fight the battle alone and that, as the attacks against science accelerate, the medical community will have to use its privileged perch in society to make the case for science. You have to join your friends, so when someone attacks the Big Bang, when someone attacks evolution, when someone attacks stem cell research, all of us rally to the front. You cant say its their problem because the scientific community is not so big that we can splinter 4 or more ways and ever still succeed doing anything [5].

So what does one do? How can a medical student, a resident, or a physician just beginning to build a career become active in these larger public battles? Burt Humburg, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Penn States Hershey Medical Center, is one role model. Hes been manning the evolutionary ramparts since his medical school days in Kansas in the late 1990s when he became active in Kansas Citizens for Science. On a brief vacation from his residency volunteering as a citizen advocate for the federal trial in Pennsylvania, he said education is the key role for the physician. While he realizes that medical students, residents and physicians might not view themselves as scientists, per se, he sees himself and his colleagues as part of the larger scientific collective that cant afford to shirk its duty. The town scientist is the town doctor, so whether we want it or not, we have the mantlethe trappingsof a scientist [7].

It is time for the medical community, through the initiative of individual physicians, to address not only how one can heal thy patient, but also how one can heal thy nation. There are many ways to get involved; from the most rudimentaryattending school board meetings, sending letters to the editor, and volunteering at the local science museumto the more demandingrunning for office, encouraging a spouse or partner to do so, or supporting candidates (especially financially) who are willing to speak out for science. As Tip ONeill, the larger-than-life Speaker of the House of Representatives, famously declared, All politics is local. Speak out for science. Isnt that a message that should be advanced in every physicians office?

Northwesterns Jon Miller concedes that speaking out may come with a price, It wont make [physicians]...popular with many people but is important for any profession, particularly a profession based on science to do so [5]. Consider this: shouldnt civic leadership be embedded in the mind of every blooming physician? In the end, doesnt combating this virulent campaign of anti-knowledge lead us back to that old adage of evolutionary leadership by example, Monkey see, monkey do? Seize the day, Doc.

References

1. Survey indicates science teachers feel pressure to teach nonscientific alternatives to evolution [press release]. Arlington, Va: National Science Teachers Association; March 24, 2005. Available at: http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50377. Accessed November 21, 2005. 2. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: Reading the polls on evolution and creationism, Pew Center Pollwatch. September 28, 2005. Available at: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118. Accessed November 21, 2005. 3. Dean, Cornelia. E-mail response to author. September 27, 2005. 4. Mooney C. The Republican War on Science. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2005. 5. Miller, Jon D. Telephone interview with author. September 29, 2005. 6. Dean C. Challenged by creationists, museums answer back. The New York Times. September 20, 2005. F1. 7. Humburg, Burt C. MD. Telephone interview with author. October 3, 2005. Paul Costello is executive director of communications and public affairs for Stanford University School of Medicine. The viewpoints expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.TOPICS:Culture/Society; EditorialKEYWORDS:ama; crevolist; idisjunkscienceNavigation: use the links below to view more comments.firstprevious1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 351-385nextlast

To: Right Wing Professor

Although I agree with the AMA on this one particular case....there treatment of the Constitution and most specifically the 2nd amendment, makes them the enemy in my eyes.

Evolution has grave weaknesses that its proponents have struggled mightily to paper over or ignore from the time of Darwin forward

If this is so then why are those who would expose such "grave weaknesses" directing 99.99% of their effort toward pushing the debate in front of high school students, and into other such popular and political venues where there can be no possible decisive result; and only 0.01% of their effort toward making their case before the professional scientific community, for instance with original scientific research?

Don't you realize how utterly bizarre and ahistorical the behavior of antievolutionists is in this respect? No group of scientists who sincerely believed they possessed a superior new theory, or a compelling refutation of an existing theory, would ever, or have ever, behaved in this way.

A scientist pushing a new, fringe, controversial, etc, idea will seek to recruit working scientists, or at least advanced science students likely to soon begin a research career, who can help develop and advance his ideas; NOT high school students, or even college students taking intro-biology to fulfill a course requirement, who can contribute nothing!

A scientist who sincerely believes that his new ideas have real scientific merit wants other scientists in the end to notice, consider and test those ideas. Therefore such a scientist will NEVER attempt to force adoption of his ideas in secondary school and introductory curricula, knowing this can only INCREASE hostility toward them in the scientific community, as it will appear to be an attempted "end run" around the process of peer review.

52
posted on 12/03/2005 8:58:56 AM PST
by Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)

It was Pasteur who indeed proved that life does not occur/evolve readily spontaneously, that it occured through infections. "Darwinists" of today are in fact more on the side of spontaneous generation cult that attacked the inventor of the vaccine himself than on the side of science.

You've got that exactly backward. As a theory of universal common descent, "Darwinism" required rejection of spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non-life as a mundane or normal process of nature). Clearly if living things are continually coming into existence, then all living things cannot be related only by biological reproduction. Spontaneous generation, in contrast, was accepted and incorporated into the previous and competing evolutionary theory of "Lammarkianism," and was also accepted by many pre-Darwinian creationists.

54
posted on 12/03/2005 9:08:42 AM PST
by Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)

It is truly amazing how knowledgeable some of these fundamentalists are concerning the intricacies of the theory of evolution.

Theories that take scientists years of hard work to learn, and which have taken centuries to test and refine, they are able to see through in seconds; all it takes is a quick trip to one of the creationist websites.

And the rapier-like wit of some the debaters! Stunning. Some examples:

Post #14: your theory sucks

Post #15: No, what this is about is Marxist theory: matter precedes thought with "Darwinism" used as a trojanhorse code word for instituting slavery by the flesh and materials.

Post #25: Scientists should focus on developing critical methods and curriculae. But since this would mean a threat to their current stature as their own theories get ammended by smarter and younger ones, they don't want to...they violate Darwin's theory itself and sin.

Regarding the status of falsificationism see Imre Lakatos, Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (CUP, 1980). See also, Larry Lauden's article in But is it Science? (Michael Ruse ed., 1988).

Underdetermination (of the Quine-Duhem sort) makes evolutionary theory per se immune to falsification by the finding of a Precambrian rabbit. Which is more likely: that the rabbit found in what we thought was a Precambrian stratum is actually Precambrian, or that the stratum is not actually Precambrian, or that there was some anomaly that allowed this rabbit (which lived long after the Precambrian era) to become embedded in this Precambrian stratum? A certain view of evolutionary history (or certain proposed phylogenies and taxonomies) might be falsified in this manner, but not evolutionary theory per se.

A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like.

-A8

56
posted on 12/03/2005 9:21:16 AM PST
by adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)

re: You know, I don't have a horse in this race (I don't really believe in either) but the vigor with which opponents of ID are fighting this seems to be a bit extreme and over-the-top of late)))

Bump your post.

It's a turf war, pure and simple. Fear. They fear they'll lose the freedom to openly ridicule their own students, fear a loss of prestige, loss of postion--perhaps even loss of money, lest a grant find its way into the ID crowd.

You can get a pretty good idea how their students are treated by the way they behave here.

57
posted on 12/03/2005 9:23:45 AM PST
by Mamzelle
(evosnob#4--Hey, if you wanna be the Evangelical GED Party--!)

It was Pasteur who indeed proved that life does not occur/evolve readily spontaneously, that it occured through infections. "Darwinists" of today are in fact more on the side of spontaneous generation cult that attacked the inventor of the vaccine himself than on the side of science.

Pasteur did nothing of the sort. Dariwnists do not attack Edward Jenner. You need to re-read your History of Medicine text.

re: Many patients are startled to find their doctors asking them if they have any guns in the house)))

This happens most often with pediatricians, who have one of the wussiest medical organizations.

You might be surprised to know that virtually no doc is happy about this--and you might be surprised how many docs, at least in the past, used to pack heat under the white coats in the ER.

Here's a clue about all medical organizations--they are made up of the doctors who are dying to get away from clinical work--they don't want to see patients. So, they try to find a related job in admin, business or politics. Most docs hate the politics part, so they don't pay much attn to it. And there's always that power trip--"I get to tell other docs what to do."

Well, no. They don't have much authority--except in setting standards of care. That's why you find docs asking questions they don't really want to ask--they fear someone accusing them of not providing proper standard of care.

Don't take these orgs as representing anything other than busybodies who don't like doing real doctor work.

59
posted on 12/03/2005 9:29:23 AM PST
by Mamzelle
(evosnob#4--Hey, if you wanna be the Evangelical GED Party--!)

It's a turf war, pure and simple. Fear. They fear they'll lose the freedom to openly ridicule their own students, fear a loss of prestige, loss of postion--perhaps even loss of money, lest a grant find its way into the ID crowd.

So, when Hare Krishna's try to get "transcendental meditation" into the public school curricula, we shouldn't fight a "turf war" against them?

"Regarding the status of falsificationism see Imre Lakatos, Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (CUP, 1980). See also, Larry Lauden's article in But is it Science? (Michael Ruse ed., 1988)."

If a *theory* can't be falsified, even hypothetically, than ANY observation can be made to fit the *theory*. The theory is useless. BTW, why couldn't you provide some reasoning as to why falsification is no longer necessary for a scientific theory? At least a summary of the above works?

"Which is more likely: that the rabbit found in what we thought was a Precambrian stratum is actually Precambrian, or that the stratum is not actually Precambrian, or that there was some anomaly that allowed this rabbit (which lived long after the Precambrian era) to become embedded in this Precambrian stratum? A certain view of evolutionary history (or certain proposed phylogenies and taxonomies) might be falsified in this manner, but not evolutionary theory per se."

If you could determine the correct age of the strata, then a huge blow would be made to evolutionary theory. And if you found a couple of more such problem fossils, then the theory would be rightly scrapped. Luckily, nothing of the sort has happened.

61
posted on 12/03/2005 9:34:40 AM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

Again: ID theory does NOT stand in opposition to most of evolutionary theory. ID theory addresses critical flaws in evolutionary theory that its materialist priesthood lacks the tools and intellectual desire to tackle.

Nope. There are no such critical flaws, and ID's biggest proponets have said that it is scientific only in the sense that Astrology is scientific. It claims design can be detected, but has been unable to say how, refuses to say by whom they were designed or by what mechanism the design was implemented, and every now and then assures the true believers, wink wink, the designer is God.

You think we haven't figured this stuff out?

Evolutionary theory is necessarily founded on the assumption that the universe has always existed (not in the Einsteinian sense, but the Newtonian sense). Evolutionary theory needs a forever universe in which to have sufficient time for random chance to do its magic.

Utter and complete rubbish. Evolution incorporates the known age of the earth - approximately 4.5 billion years.

It was the work of Einstein and modern physicists that destroyed the forever universe piffle and conceit of the evolutionists. The spectacular COBE results have since confirmed the existence of a cooling universe that was infinitely hot and dense less than 20 billion years ago. The forever universe is no more. That's a development that evolutionists desperately wish had never come along.

This appears to be a product of your fertile imagination. In general, estimates of the age of the earth have increased with time, not decreased.

You're a true cultist. No matter how often your arguments are proven to be completely speciioous, you won't question your belief system.

ID theory honestly and straightforwardly proffers by way of analogy that the best inference we can make about the existence of life is that an organizing intelligence set the initial conditions and devised the plans necessary for life to arise and evolve to the levels of present day complexity. It is the most logical and rational way, based on our observations, to explain how we got to where we are in less than 20 billion years.

Except that we have absolutely no evidence any such process ever happened. One might as well say, that because the Panama canal and Suez canals exist, and it's the only example of a channel between two bodies of water we've ever seen to form, that all channels on the earth must have been dug by humans. What piffle!

Evolutionists, on the other hand, quite clearly name and identify their organizing deity. It is none other than Chaos. Sadly for them, Chaos is only adequate to the task in a universe other than the universe that modern physics has disclosed to us.

"A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like."

Not in support of Darwinian Evolution. ID, on the other hand, as it has no constraints whatsoever on it's causative agent (the alleged intelligent designer), would be able to handle any and every sequence of fossils imaginable. No matter what.

63
posted on 12/03/2005 9:37:15 AM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

If evolution had been taught as an indespensible model (which it is)--the IDers would never have had the momentum to cause as much anguish as they clearly have. It was the folly of teaching it as dogma which opened the door that the evos are now so frantic to shut. And, those who don't know much about the debate, keep wondering, "Why not give it a hearing? What are you so terrified of?" Because--it sure looks like terror, all this over-the-top behavior.

When teachers feel free to jeer at a student's religious beliefs...well, you're going to have trouble in your playground. Those students have organized to challenge and hector, and the teachers themselves are not behaving in a very attractive manner.

65
posted on 12/03/2005 9:44:50 AM PST
by Mamzelle
(evosnob#4--Hey, if you wanna be the Evangelical GED Party--!)

It is clear the fundamentalists want to subject every aspect of human interaction to their particular cultist viewpoint. Science must be straight-armed and shoehorned into agreement with Genesis. Universities must be forbidden from critically examining fundamentalism, and must teach the fundamentalist world-view. Businesses must likewise adopt the symbols of fundamentalism; government must establish the Christian religion; schools must incorporate religious worship.

We've seen totalitarianism several times this century. It's not hard to recognize here.

If evolution had been taught as an indespensible model (which it is)--the IDers would never have had the momentum to cause as much anguish as they clearly have. It was the folly of teaching it as dogma which opened the door that the evos are now so frantic to shut.

Are you really suggesting that the theory of evolution matches one or more of these definitions?

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

67
posted on 12/03/2005 9:51:11 AM PST
by Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)

Yes, and it should not be that way, and you (evos and evo educators in general) wouldn't be in this position now if you had not behaved as if it was so.

I was taught evo as a dogma. "The embryos have things that look like gills, therefore we are descended from fish." Poor teaching, sure, debunked--but the student is always at a disadvantage. At the time, I didn't really care except to get my grade, but I knew that I was being fed hokum as fact. If it had been taught as a model, which of course would have worked very well, there wouldn't be many out there who resent the kind of impositions of dogma where dogma does not belong.

Now, the evos are howling because the IDs want a listen. Many who aren't IDers, but simply doubt the overreaching claims of evos, enjoy the frightened dismay of those same evos.

What I'd suggest is developing a respectful case that evolution must be taught, but for the best reason--it is a vital paradigm for understanding the structure of life. You can do this without snarling at the religious.

And resist all temptation to ridicule a student who expresses doubt about "descendance"-- there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about a doubt--and no teacher should react with emotion when a doubt is expressed.

69
posted on 12/03/2005 10:02:51 AM PST
by Mamzelle
(evosnob#4--Hey, if you wanna be the Evangelical GED Party--!)

It was Pasteur who indeed proved that life does not occur/evolve readily spontaneously, that it occured through infections. "Darwinists" of today are in fact more on the side of spontaneous generation cult that attacked the inventor of the vaccine himself than on the side of science.

You'd better read up on exactly what Pasteur's famous experiment did, in fact, demonstrate. It had nothing to do with the origin of life.

"Regarding the status of falsificationism see Imre Lakatos, Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (CUP, 1980). See also, Larry Lauden's article in But is it Science? (Michael Ruse ed., 1988). -- A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like."

Yep.

QUOTE: "...science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. .." Methodological Naturalism? ~ Alvin Plantinga

*

MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...

If a *theory* can't be falsified, even hypothetically, than ANY observation can be made to fit the *theory*.

This is Quine's and Kuhn's point. But some theories provide a better explanation of the observations than do others. Many scientific hypotheses are abandonded not because they are falsified, but because a better hypothesis shows up. Sometimes the fit between a theory and the observation is so poor that the theory is essentially falsified; those are the sorts of theory that are said to have been falsified and/or are falsifiable. But for others, the losing theory or theories are not falsified, just out-performed. And in some cases, there is no clear winner.

Think of the historical sciences for example. They often do not generate testable predictions that allow decisive falsification; they may generate only expectations based on hypothetical determinations of results (i.e. what we would expect to find) given known rules and the particular case posited by the theory. In that situation theories compete abductively, not by deductive falsification via modus tollens.

-A8

72
posted on 12/03/2005 10:14:03 AM PST
by adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)

I agree. But evolutionary theory is broader than Darwinism. In other words, a rejection of Darwinism would not ipso facto be a rejection of evolutionary theory.

ID, on the other hand, as it has no constraints whatsoever on it's causative agent (the alleged intelligent designer), would be able to handle any and every sequence of fossils imaginable. No matter what.

I agree.

-A8

74
posted on 12/03/2005 10:16:37 AM PST
by adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)

Questioning has never been wrong if done fairly. This is what increases knowledge and our lot, not the Darwin theory itself as a sort of algorithm, but the questioning itself is the main "algorithm of the algorithms".

If you were right, all the slow learners in class, the ones who just couldn't absorb the material, would be up for Nobel Prizes. That's ID. Asking the same questions over and over for at least the last 10 years and ignoring the answers.

By the way, this is one of the worst articles ever in support of Darwinism.

Truman used to say he didn't give 'em hell; he gave 'em the truth and they thought it was hell.

76
posted on 12/03/2005 10:40:00 AM PST
by VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)

Although I agree with you about our second amendment rights (see my home page, the top line is the same as your tagline), I have to say that in this case, however belated, the support of the AMA is both welcome and important.

The last thing I want is a creationist doctor as in the Baby Fay episode.

"Now, the evos are howling because the IDs want a listen. Many who aren't IDers, but simply doubt the overreaching claims of evos, enjoy the frightened dismay of those same evos. What I'd suggest is developing a respectful case that evolution must be taught, but for the best reason--it is a vital paradigm for understanding the structure of life. You can do this without snarling at the religious. And resist all temptation to ridicule a student who expresses doubt about "descendance"-- there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about a doubt--and no teacher should react with emotion when a doubt is expressed."

Of course the bottom line is the fact that we wouldn't even be having this "debate" if the people who have the God-given responsibility for their own children's education, were allowed to send their children to the school of their choice (religious, or otherwise).

Instead we have allowed powerful special interests in "the government" (which our Constitution was put into place to protect us from) to usurp the parent's responsibility and enforce their own agenda-driven ideas on the rest of us.

This has to stop. Parents must insist that they have the right to educate their own children in the schools of their choice.

As far as I'm concerned, Cyber Schools (on-line learning) are the only way to go because one has access to the best teachers in the world from which to choose.

Parasitic government unions need to go. They're destroying our government, just as they destroyed the steel, airline, and automobile industries, etc. Union-backed bureaucracies destroy incentive and attract lazy, incompetent, mediocrities who can't compete in the real world - yet they get paid as much or more than those who excell in their work.

78
posted on 12/03/2005 10:42:05 AM PST
by Matchett-PI
( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)

As in, perhaps, like a theory? That is what evolution is, a model (or theory). That is what I learned it as, and the limited teaching I did, that is what I taught it as. One of my favorite fields in grad school was "modeling," that is, working with hypotheses and theories.

Now, the evos are howling because the IDs want a listen.

No, not because they "want a listen," but because they want to undermine the very foundations of science. This is very well expressed in the Wedge Document. The goal is clearly not to improve science, or to improve the theory of evolution, but, as the document states: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." Just what do you think they mean by this?

What I'd suggest is developing a respectful case that evolution must be taught, but for the best reason--it is a vital paradigm for understanding the structure of life. You can do this without snarling at the religious.

What I would suggest is that the religious cease their attacks on science. But, since that does not appear likely, perhaps scientists should start fighting back even more than they already do.

79
posted on 12/03/2005 10:44:28 AM PST
by Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)

No, no, no - don't you see? When they argue, it's legitimate discourse. When you disagree and try to rebut, it's snarling bigotry. See how that works? Notice how clever it is to rule your argument illegitimate on its face?

It isn't just an evo-teacher who falls into the temptation of bullying students into signing on to a particular ideology. The whole practice is indemic in education. I couldn't attend many classes without some petty electioneering of some kind going on.

I believe it is simply unethical--but the temptation to "sell" one's POV when an audience is captive is hard to resist.

If evo-teachers had disciplined themselves to talk as scientists should speak, in language heavy with qualifiers and "mights" "likelihood" "best possible explanatin" "plausible" "meets the minimum particulars"--they wouldn't be dealing with this challenge. Instead, they're playing catchup because too many of their own gave in to bullying.

81
posted on 12/03/2005 10:49:48 AM PST
by Mamzelle
(evosnob#4--Hey, if you wanna be the Evangelical GED Party--!)

Well, they mostly went silent when they let folks like Deepak Chopra and other purveyors of "traditional" or "alternative" treatments into the door.

There may be active pharmaceuticals in some of the old remedies... but when a lot of claptrap is accepted and gets wide-spread dissemination on "Oprah" and the like... well, it's a bit late to get try to close the barn door on what is not hard-core, reductionist approaches to medicine/science.

If evo-teachers had disciplined themselves to talk as scientists should speak, in language heavy with qualifiers and "mights" "likelihood" "best possible explanatin" "plausible" "meets the minimum particulars"--they wouldn't be dealing with this challenge.

Actually, I have seen some our arguments on these threads dismissed as being inadequate just because they contain too many qualifiers.

84
posted on 12/03/2005 10:55:28 AM PST
by Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)

When we pay college profs a whole lot more than we do now, it will be possible to have a large enough pool to select for highly skillful teaching as well as knowlege of subject. I had a whole lot of truly obnoxious folk teaching me in college...but so long as they knew their stuff I was ok with them. Scientists, especially, do not suffer fools gladly and often are at least mildly afflicted with Asperger's syndrome, giving them few social skills.

As for k-12 teachers, they are not the to half of any college educated group. Few have a good understanding of the science they teach (for instance having students do "experiments" that are clearly demonstrations with right answers).

Those of us living in the real world, wthout an agenda to destroy science and replace it with theocracy, accept the limitations and work to improve, not re-define and destroy.

Scientific organizations from various fields are beginning to enter the debate against ID. ID is living on borrowed time as an academic alternative to evolutionary theory. Those trained in scientific matters will inevitable win debates involving science. The inmates cannot be allowed to run the asylum.

90
posted on 12/03/2005 11:04:09 AM PST
by ValenB4
("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)

"Ahhhhh ... probably because he knew that metaphysics was one of Locke's main interests. Duh:

John Locke -- Main interests:Metaphysics, Epistemology, Political philosophy, philosophy of mind, Education"

But in what way is Darwin challenging the metaphysics of Locke?

BTW, for those who didn't follow the previous thread where this came up, Matchett-PI had insisted that metaphysics was about the supernatural. I correctly told her it was not, and that Darwin was challenging Locke's metaphysics. So she KNOWS I know that Locke dealt with metaphysical issues. She also knows I know that she has never answered in what way Darwin was challenging Locke's metaphysics. She brings up the Darwin quote in about every crevo thread, but cannot explain what it means.

94
posted on 12/03/2005 11:12:43 AM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

"Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" -- Ruse, M: 1992.Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press. -- (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. .. ~ John S. Wilkins (talkorigins)

You missed the succeeding sentence in your quote.

These must be considered separate to the scientific theory, and are often in contradiction to the actual scientific models. Taken from the same quote of John Wilkins as above

Rather changes the meaning of your quote.

It's unethical to change the meaning of a quote. How many others of your quotes are similarly presented as disingenuously?

Scientific organizations from various fields are beginning to enter the debate against ID. ID is living on borrowed time as an academic alternative to evolutionary theory. Those trained in scientific matters will inevitable win debates involving science. The inmates cannot be allowed to run the asylum.

I hope you're right. What worries me is that the alienation of the GOP from science will entail the long-term ascendancy of leftism in this country, with all that that entails.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.